(no subject)

[which_chick]

As if a get out of menstruation free card wasn't a big enough bennie from the hysterectomy, I ALSO don't have to consider myself pre-pregnant at all times. Huzzah for that.

Damn loonies.

Attention, federal government: I am not your baby factory. I never was your baby factory. You don't own me and you don't own my fucking reproductive choices.

Comments

[gwangi.livejournal.com]

I must really be missing something here. What are you so upset about? I think the CDC has a valid point - if 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, then I don't see a problem with asking sexually active people to prepare for an unplanned pregnancy. And it's not like they're trying to get women to do some totally wacko things, either. They urge them to stop smoking, eat right, and take their vitamins. That's good advice for anybody at any age!

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I am angry because I am under the delusion that women have value above and beyond their capabilities as baby incubators. Sorry about that, but it was a popular myth when I was a kid. (I blame the seventies, all that women's lib shit going on.)

I do not understand how a baby that IS NOT EVEN CONCEIVED YET can be more WORTH TREATING than me such that health advice and treatment GIVEN TO ME should be predicated on a very hypothetical fetus. If this stuff is important health advice, why don't they just give it to me because it's good FOR ME? Hell, why don't the feds argue that docs should give this advice to men? Doesn't the federal government care about men's health?

Look. If that fucking stuff is GOOD ADVICE FOR ALL PEOPLE, then why aren't the feds telling doctors to whine at everybody? They are not asking "all sexually active people" to lead clean lives. They are asking WOMEN to lead clean lives IN CASE THEY GET PREGNANT because their status as BABY INCUBATORS is more important than their status as individuals with some freaking right to determine their own paths through life, even if they pick wrong or stupid paths.

On a related note, did you know that one of the reasons teen pregnancy numbers are dropping is NOT improved access to birth control and it's NOT fewer teens fucking... it's lower sperm motility and viability on the part of the teenage boys. So, y'know, where's the great hue and cry to make sure that teenage boys live clean, healthy lives and avoid chemical exposure? Don't we want to make sure that, in the exceedingly unlikely event that young men have unprotected sex0r, they'll be able to offer up high-quality sperm to make a healthier unplanned baby?

When I see *that* argument coming forth from the establishment, then you can talk to me about how women should live carefully and cleanly so's to be better at the pre-pregnant game for the rights of the hypothetical fucking fetus.

[gwangi.livejournal.com]

They have been whining about all of these things to everybody for YEARS, as you well know. I just don't see the malice you seem to find in this more specific tack. Yeah, they're singling out a specific group in the warning, but I really can't see them doing it for the reasons you're seeing here. Heck, the reason they don't tell guys this same thing is probably as much due to the fact that we never go to the doctor as anything else.

And there's no way I'm buying your lowered sperm motility argument without seeing some evidence for it. Not that I don't trust you, and I'm fully aware of the dangers of environmental phytoestrogens and PCBs and whatnot in regard to male fertility patterns, but I have a really hard time believing it's even a minor contributor to decreased teen pregnancy rates.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

You aren't ever obligated to buy any argument I make. I don't generally make crap like that out of whole cloth (http://www.slate.com/id/2140985/), though. Usually I have some kind of supporting documentation (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/6/1437) even though I don't always include it in the rant itself. (People already complain that I link to too much crap, so I'm trying to cut down.)

It's one study, but it looked enough like real science to convince me. You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion.

[cousin-sue.livejournal.com]

It's not just this. It's other law cases as well.

Like the women who are under inditment for drug use, not because drug use is illegal (which it is, and so they should be in prison if they care found guilty in a court of law), but because they are endangering their babies because they are pregnant.

Too, they're *cutting* funding to ensure that these things are available to low income members of society.

There are a lot of factors here. Considering that it's considered a "poor career move" to get married and have children, and yet if a woman chooses to not get married or have children they are constantly questioned about that, we can't win for choosing here.